Wow, this list illustrates just have far P4's tastes have drifted from mine (in what seems like just two or three years). So many of the albums that are missing on this list (Underwater Moonlight, Stands for Decibels, The Mekons Rock 'n' Roll, etc) were albums they turned me on to with their original list. And it seems like nearly all of my favorites from their original list went down, while the albums I'm most ambivalent about went up (with some notable exceptions; I'm happy to see Kate Bush and Prince's gains!). I don't begrudge them, they're entitled to their opinions. I just don't really look forward to their lists the way I used to.

Chris K. wrote:Wow, this list illustrates just have far P4's tastes have drifted from mine (in what seems like just two or three years). So many of the albums that are missing on this list (Underwater Moonlight, Stands for Decibels, The Mekons Rock 'n' Roll, etc) were albums they turned me on to with their original list. And it seems like nearly all of my favorites from their original list went down, while the albums I'm most ambivalent about went up (with some notable exceptions; I'm happy to see Kate Bush and Prince's gains!). I don't begrudge them, they're entitled to their opinions. I just don't really look forward to their lists the way I used to.

I've never looked forward to their lists on past decades because I've always felt, more than any other magazine or website, that Pitchfork's rankings of era's before their time are carefully cultivated to reinforce whatever vision they are selling us now as to what constitutes "Great" music today, rather than genuinely trying to just lock in on what was best in that era for that era. We're in a Hip-Hop / R&B / Pop and Disco era right now, one where off to the side metal has been left alone but thrives, so Pitchfork's new list of the 80s is overloaded with titles that reinforces those genres as the best, at the expense of the acts and albums that informed the indie rock and noise rock and punk tastes the site was all about a decade ago.

So we get Prince's third and fourth best albums of the decade, Dirty Mind and 1999, ranked ahead of the very best effort of the decade by the likes of REM, The Replacements, The Jesus And The Mary Chain, Tom Waits, The Stone Roses, U2, The Minutemen, AC/DC, Guns And Roses, Roxy Music, The Pretenders, Peter Gabriel, etc, etc. something to which I think 4/5 people who actually lived through the decade and listened broadly would argue no f***ing way, including most Prince fans.

But give Pitchfok another ten years and the list will have an entirely different look again. There's just no consistency with that site other than their loyalty to the now.

These Pitchfork lists used to turn me onto obscure and cool music. Could you say the same of these lists now? And if they are not introducing me to new, exciting music, what purpose does Pitchfork serve as a site for the appreciation of "alternative music"?

Chris K. wrote:Wow, this list illustrates just have far P4's tastes have drifted from mine (in what seems like just two or three years). So many of the albums that are missing on this list (Underwater Moonlight, Stands for Decibels, The Mekons Rock 'n' Roll, etc) were albums they turned me on to with their original list. And it seems like nearly all of my favorites from their original list went down, while the albums I'm most ambivalent about went up (with some notable exceptions; I'm happy to see Kate Bush and Prince's gains!). I don't begrudge them, they're entitled to their opinions. I just don't really look forward to their lists the way I used to.

I've never looked forward to their lists on past decades because I've always felt, more than any other magazine or website, that Pitchfork's rankings of era's before their time are carefully cultivated to reinforce whatever vision they are selling us now as to what constitutes "Great" music today, rather than genuinely trying to just lock in on what was best in that era for that era. We're in a Hip-Hop / R&B / Pop and Disco era right now, one where off to the side metal has been left alone but thrives, so Pitchfork's new list of the 80s is overloaded with titles that reinforces those genres as the best, at the expense of the acts and albums that informed the indie rock and noise rock and punk tastes the site was all about a decade ago.

So we get Prince's third and fourth best albums of the decade, Dirty Mind and 1999, ranked ahead of the very best effort of the decade by the likes of REM, The Replacements, The Jesus And The Mary Chain, Tom Waits, The Stone Roses, U2, The Minutemen, AC/DC, Guns And Roses, Roxy Music, The Pretenders, Peter Gabriel, etc, etc. something to which I think 4/5 people who actually lived through the decade and listened broadly would argue no f***ing way, including most Prince fans.

But give Pitchfok another ten years and the list will have an entirely different look again. There's just no consistency with that site other than their loyalty to the now.

1999 is Prince's best album of the decade. If anything the list could use MORE Prince. Controversy, Parade, and Lovesexy all belong.

That said, I'm generally pretty happy with the list. Could have used some more synth pop from the early part of the decade (Eurythmics, Human League), and more non-English music, but it's a big time upgrade from the first list, IMO. Thrilled with the love for Janet though the order of the Janet albums should be swapped, and happy that Siouxsie and the Banshees managed to get an album on there (they deserve at least 3, IMO).

Moonbeam wrote:1999 is Prince's best album of the decade. If anything the list could use MORE Prince. Controversy, Parade, and Lovesexy all belong.

We'll agree to disagree there.

While I've never seen a greater live performer in my lifetime, always been a touch underwhelmed by Prince on album. Wildly creative and inventive, and for that he should be celebrated, but not nearly as consistent a songwriter as most of the other all time greats, and may have had the worst production ear of just about any artist we would seriously consider in the rock/pop/soul top 25 all time - his mixes and arrangements were just so thin and weak so often. On albums like Dirty Mind and 1999 almost hard to listen to sometimes, even when one likes everything else about the song.

Moonbeam wrote:1999 is Prince's best album of the decade. If anything the list could use MORE Prince. Controversy, Parade, and Lovesexy all belong.

We'll agree to disagree there.

While I've never seen a greater live performer in my lifetime, always been a touch underwhelmed by Prince on album. Wildly creative and inventive, and for that he should be celebrated, but not nearly as consistent a songwriter as most of the other all time greats, and may have had the worst production ear of just about any artist we would seriously consider in the rock/pop/soul top 25 all time - his mixes and arrangements were just so thin and weak so often. On albums like Dirty Mind and 1999 almost hard to listen to sometimes, even when one likes everything else about the song.

I would probably lean more towards Purple Rain too. It's more accessible and I just listened to it recently and haven't listen to 1999 in a while. That might have something to do with it.

As for this list, I like it but I can definitely understand people not liking it all compared to the 2002 list. If it doesn't fit the type of music you like then you probably are going to favor one list over the other. Pitchfork has changed a LOT in 16 years so that plays a big factor in the difference. 2002 was also a list of 100 and this is 200 so maybe some of these albums that appear on the 2018 list may have been on the 2002 list if it was expanded to 200. This list is a lot more catering to the current trends in music for sure. I don't know how I feel about that. It caters to my interest but that doesn't necessarily make it right either.

Illiniq wrote:I've never looked forward to their lists on past decades because I've always felt, more than any other magazine or website, that Pitchfork's rankings of era's before their time are carefully cultivated to reinforce whatever vision they are selling us now as to what constitutes "Great" music today, rather than genuinely trying to just lock in on what was best in that era for that era. We're in a Hip-Hop / R&B / Pop and Disco era right now, one where off to the side metal has been left alone but thrives, so Pitchfork's new list of the 80s is overloaded with titles that reinforces those genres as the best, at the expense of the acts and albums that informed the indie rock and noise rock and punk tastes the site was all about a decade ago.

So we get Prince's third and fourth best albums of the decade, Dirty Mind and 1999, ranked ahead of the very best effort of the decade by the likes of REM, The Replacements, The Jesus And The Mary Chain, Tom Waits, The Stone Roses, U2, The Minutemen, AC/DC, Guns And Roses, Roxy Music, The Pretenders, Peter Gabriel, etc, etc. something to which I think 4/5 people who actually lived through the decade and listened broadly would argue no f***ing way, including most Prince fans.

But give Pitchfok another ten years and the list will have an entirely different look again. There's just no consistency with that site other than their loyalty to the now.

You're absolutely right. Their lists have always been lopsided to an annoying degree, I guess I just discovered some pretty great underrated gems through them in the past.

Moonbeam wrote:1999 is Prince's best album of the decade. If anything the list could use MORE Prince. Controversy, Parade, and Lovesexy all belong.

We'll agree to disagree there.

While I've never seen a greater live performer in my lifetime, always been a touch underwhelmed by Prince on album. Wildly creative and inventive, and for that he should be celebrated, but not nearly as consistent a songwriter as most of the other all time greats, and may have had the worst production ear of just about any artist we would seriously consider in the rock/pop/soul top 25 all time - his mixes and arrangements were just so thin and weak so often. On albums like Dirty Mind and 1999 almost hard to listen to sometimes, even when one likes everything else about the song.

I LOVE the production on those records! 1999 in particular has such an awesome sound to it, which is what in part makes it my favorite album of all time.

Moonbeam wrote:1999 is Prince's best album of the decade. If anything the list could use MORE Prince. Controversy, Parade, and Lovesexy all belong.

We'll agree to disagree there.

While I've never seen a greater live performer in my lifetime, always been a touch underwhelmed by Prince on album. Wildly creative and inventive, and for that he should be celebrated, but not nearly as consistent a songwriter as most of the other all time greats, and may have had the worst production ear of just about any artist we would seriously consider in the rock/pop/soul top 25 all time - his mixes and arrangements were just so thin and weak so often. On albums like Dirty Mind and 1999 almost hard to listen to sometimes, even when one likes everything else about the song.

I LOVE the production on those records! 1999 in particular has such an awesome sound to it, which is what in part makes it my favorite album of all time.

Pencil me in as another big fan of the production on "1999," comfortably my second favorite album by Prince. As an artist, he could be intentionally sparse and then also throw the kitchen sink at you. "1999" was the album that introduced me to him in my early teens and was mind-blowing at the time with its overt sexuality and musical diversity. I hadn't heard anything quite like it. (This was an album that managed to cross over to the mainstream at a time when some radio stations were refusing to play Olivia Newton-John's "Physical" because they deemed it too "suggestive.")

In particular, a celebration of 80s pop should be welcome as it was an amazing decade for pop music which has long been derided by critics and the public alike. But 80s nostalgia is incredibly strong (stronger than 70s and 90s nostalgia from what I gather), such that it’s become more acceptable now to embrace the bright colors the 80s delivered like no other decade.

Chris K. wrote:Wow, this list illustrates just have far P4's tastes have drifted from mine (in what seems like just two or three years). So many of the albums that are missing on this list (Underwater Moonlight, Stands for Decibels, The Mekons Rock 'n' Roll, etc) were albums they turned me on to with their original list. And it seems like nearly all of my favorites from their original list went down, while the albums I'm most ambivalent about went up (with some notable exceptions; I'm happy to see Kate Bush and Prince's gains!). I don't begrudge them, they're entitled to their opinions. I just don't really look forward to their lists the way I used to.

I've never looked forward to their lists on past decades because I've always felt, more than any other magazine or website, that Pitchfork's rankings of era's before their time are carefully cultivated to reinforce whatever vision they are selling us now as to what constitutes "Great" music today, rather than genuinely trying to just lock in on what was best in that era for that era. We're in a Hip-Hop / R&B / Pop and Disco era right now, one where off to the side metal has been left alone but thrives, so Pitchfork's new list of the 80s is overloaded with titles that reinforces those genres as the best, at the expense of the acts and albums that informed the indie rock and noise rock and punk tastes the site was all about a decade ago.

So we get Prince's third and fourth best albums of the decade, Dirty Mind and 1999, ranked ahead of the very best effort of the decade by the likes of REM, The Replacements, The Jesus And The Mary Chain, Tom Waits, The Stone Roses, U2, The Minutemen, AC/DC, Guns And Roses, Roxy Music, The Pretenders, Peter Gabriel, etc, etc. something to which I think 4/5 people who actually lived through the decade and listened broadly would argue no f***ing way, including most Prince fans.

But give Pitchfok another ten years and the list will have an entirely different look again. There's just no consistency with that site other than their loyalty to the now.

This is the problem. Pitchfork is stripping away the old pitchfork. I started to notice that when they did the top 50 albums of 1998, with an accompanying article about In The Aeroplane Over the Sea: A Divisive Classic Turns 20. This is the publication who's endorsement of said record took it from 675 of all-time into the top 250.

The original 80s list was monolith of alternative/ indie/ noise rock, and the 90s list actually defined my adult music tastes: Wilco, The Flaming Lips, Neutral Milk Hotel, Belle & Sebastian. I was 19 when that list came out, and it completely changed my music tastes.

The most subversive thing about this list is Madonna's S/T in the top 20, and The Cure outranking Joy Division. Pitchfork used to be anti-establishment, now they're anti-critic, anti-boomer darling artists, pro-dance floor. It's quite sad, really.

Pitchfork rose at a time when the hipster subculture was in its infancy as an alternative-indie rock amateur publication, and catering to the predominantly mid-to-up class American white men, who grown listening to student radios, they were. Twenty years in, the hipster subculture has faded and a number of their ideas have made their way into mainstream pop culture. Therefore, it's only natural if they want to survive that Pitchfork reposition themselves to please a wider audience, including Afro-American people and the youth. Doing so, they may be trapped by the zeitgeist, but not following it was what nearly killed Rolling Stone back in the days. You can't blame them for learning from the lessons of the past.

I personally find their approach too American-centric anyway and I've lost interest in Pitchfork a while ago.

On-topic, you may or may not like to know that Louder Sound (ex-Team Rock, aka Classic Rock, Metal Hammer & Prog) are currently unraveling their own 200 best albums of the 1980s as 20-albums-per-year packs each week. An occasion to be reminded how the music culture of 30+ year old American white men has sharply divided between the mid-to-up and lower-to-mid classes since the late 1980s-through-1990s.

Pierre wrote:Pitchfork rose at a time when the hipster subculture was in its infancy as an alternative-indie rock amateur publication, and catering to the predominantly mid-to-up class American white men, who grown listening to student radios, they were. Twenty years in, the hipster subculture has faded and a number of their ideas have made their way into mainstream pop culture. Therefore, it's only natural if they want to survive that Pitchfork reposition themselves to please a wider audience, including Afro-American people and the youth. Doing so, they may be trapped by the zeitgeist, but not following it was what nearly killed Rolling Stone back in the days. You can't blame them for learning from the lessons of the past.

The problem here is that I still think Pitchfork is hipster-centric and that poptimism is basically a hipster movement. I've always thought Pitchfork was hip and happening to a fault. The reason I never followed them was because their reviews all too frequently annoyed me because they revealed very little about the music and too much about the cultural climate in which they were written, full with obsessions about current fads (to say nothing of the writers trying very hard to come across as smart). There has been an air of fakeness over Pitchfork for quite some time now (I don't know if that was true when they just started), with music being reviewed based on how much they fit the cultural climate Pitchfork promotes instead of as music on itself. This new switch into poptimism and poptimism only is as false as when they were defiantly anti-pop. This magazine can't review music on it's own merit. With this new change they only reveal their lack of genuine vision. Laugh about Rolling Stone all you want, but for the most part they know what they are about, whether that is fashionable or not .

With this new move Pitchfork obviously wins some news readers, but I think they will lose more as people whose tastes they reflected are probably not going to change so radically along with them. Personally, I can't take the overhaul of this list seriously and not even because I'm generally not fan of 80's pop and it's nostalgic revisionism.

Man, 4 of the top 9 new albums are among my all time top 100! And then there is Like a Prayer, Grace Jones, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and Cyndi Lauper in the top 100. I officially love this list! For those who aren’t keen on it, I understand, but the old list is still there. For too long a lot of great 80s pop music has been slept on by critics. Hopefully this list will turn some people on to some amazing music just as the original list sounds like it did.

Moonbeam wrote:Man, 4 of the top 9 new albums are among my all time top 100! And then there is Like a Prayer, Grace Jones, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and Cyndi Lauper in the top 100. I officially love this list! For those who aren’t keen on it, I understand, but the old list is still there. For too long a lot of great 80s pop music has been slept on by critics. Hopefully this list will turn some people on to some amazing music just as the original list sounds like it did.

So where should it be? It's a great album. Are you saying it shouldn't be on the list at all or further down?

Based on his previous posts, he's not a fan of anyone in particular named Jackson (Samuel L., maybe). Given that and the "yikes," I'm guessing he's saying not at all. I wouldn't rank it that high, but I wouldn't yikes either. Seems a tad harsh.

So where should it be? It's a great album. Are you saying it shouldn't be on the list at all or further down?

Based on his previous posts, he's not a fan of anyone in particular named Jackson (Samuel L., maybe). Given that and the "yikes," I'm guessing he's saying not at all. I wouldn't rank it that high, but I wouldn't yikes either. Seems a tad harsh.

That's funny.

Anyway I was just trying to get a gauge of whether he felt it was too high or just shouldn't be there at all by what he posted but as you said the 'yikes' is pretty much a dead giveaway.

I like this list more than the previous one. In the first half they have put the classic albums plus some very representative artists of the decade that are not usually taken into account by the critics. In the second half underground artists predominate, I at least had to consult many in rym to know who they were. Really the only thing that disappoints me is leaving out The Trinity Sessions.

I hope they are also encouraged to redo the list of the 70s and 90s.

Last edited by carlos74 on Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

I will say this. As a list, I think it's terrible. 2 Sade Albums above Murmur is ridiculous. As a fan of this site, it's always interesting when we have some movements in the rankings. Hopefully this and lists like it will cause some interesting shifts, that will result in new discussion.

Since the eighties was the decade of my youth, I was curious to see just how many of my personal favorites made Pitchfork's 200. Of my top 100, only 34 featured (marked with a *). But then my list is even more "poptimistic," so that's not very surprising. Since I took these directly from my spreadsheet, I was a little surprised how many artists I really like that didn't make my list at all. But then I love the eighties enough that I could've tripled this list and still been listing albums I like a lot.

I do wonder if the eighties is THE decade that people like the least if they weren't actually alive during it. The people I know personally that were born in the nineties or later really dislike the decade, with the exception of a few punk bands. And they really despise the synth-pop, which (as indicated by my list) I absolutely adore.

Elder wrote:in the 1980's who cried were fans of REMin the 1990's I think it will be Pavement's who will cry

Indeed. I will be super sad. Pavement is the 90s band for me.

I think it's time for Pitchfork to rip off the band aid and do a ranked top 500 albums of all-time, akin to the rolling stone list, as opposed to their top 500 songs list which was era based, and chronological order. Though I'm starting to sense I would dislike any list they do at this point.

Fingers crossed that they ditch Pavement in their 90s list. Always thought they were a snobby poor mans Pixies or a Sonic Youth minus the passion and enthusiasm. To be clumped with those two indie powerhouse legends is an absolute crime. If they opted to rank Neutral Milks Aeroplane lower in favor of the catchiest lowfi legends Guided by Voices who deserve to be placed into that indie royalty vein with SY and Pixies Id be very gracious. Also I for one was greatly appreciative of their lack of Tom Waits on this list as well as their lack of synthpop and putting more emphasis on the guitar driven bands instead. That and them ranking Cocteau Twins ABOVE such greats as Spacemen 3, the Blue Nile, MBV, Galaxie 500 and Jesus and Mary Chain was incredibly ballsy but accurate. CTs are that influential and never got the credit they truly deserved. The only major issue that will continue to make them look fairly snobbish is they’ll likely continue to rank Guyville in their top 20 lists of Greatest 90 Albums and leave Phair’s two brilliant follow ups out in the cold like they were cheap leftovers and scraps of what should have been a brilliant career if she just kept things sounding Guyvillesque and didn’t evolve and move on from that era. I love this list for being so female friendly as well.

Chris K. wrote:Wow, this list illustrates just have far P4's tastes have drifted from mine (in what seems like just two or three years). So many of the albums that are missing on this list (Underwater Moonlight, Stands for Decibels, The Mekons Rock 'n' Roll, etc) were albums they turned me on to with their original list. And it seems like nearly all of my favorites from their original list went down, while the albums I'm most ambivalent about went up (with some notable exceptions; I'm happy to see Kate Bush and Prince's gains!). I don't begrudge them, they're entitled to their opinions. I just don't really look forward to their lists the way I used to.

I've never looked forward to their lists on past decades because I've always felt, more than any other magazine or website, that Pitchfork's rankings of era's before their time are carefully cultivated to reinforce whatever vision they are selling us now as to what constitutes "Great" music today, rather than genuinely trying to just lock in on what was best in that era for that era. We're in a Hip-Hop / R&B / Pop and Disco era right now, one where off to the side metal has been left alone but thrives, so Pitchfork's new list of the 80s is overloaded with titles that reinforces those genres as the best, at the expense of the acts and albums that informed the indie rock and noise rock and punk tastes the site was all about a decade ago.

So we get Prince's third and fourth best albums of the decade, Dirty Mind and 1999, ranked ahead of the very best effort of the decade by the likes of REM, The Replacements, The Jesus And The Mary Chain, Tom Waits, The Stone Roses, U2, The Minutemen, AC/DC, Guns And Roses, Roxy Music, The Pretenders, Peter Gabriel, etc, etc. something to which I think 4/5 people who actually lived through the decade and listened broadly would argue no f***ing way, including most Prince fans.

But give Pitchfok another ten years and the list will have an entirely different look again. There's just no consistency with that site other than their loyalty to the now.

This is the problem. Pitchfork is stripping away the old pitchfork. I started to notice that when they did the top 50 albums of 1998, with an accompanying article about In The Aeroplane Over the Sea: A Divisive Classic Turns 20. This is the publication who's endorsement of said record took it from 675 of all-time into the top 250.

The original 80s list was monolith of alternative/ indie/ noise rock, and the 90s list actually defined my adult music tastes: Wilco, The Flaming Lips, Neutral Milk Hotel, Belle & Sebastian. I was 19 when that list came out, and it completely changed my music tastes.

The most subversive thing about this list is Madonna's S/T in the top 20, and The Cure outranking Joy Division. Pitchfork used to be anti-establishment, now they're anti-critic, anti-boomer darling artists, pro-dance floor. It's quite sad, really.

I think those critics are way exagerated, the original 80s list, more than any of their other lists, was fairly single-minded toward white guys with guitars who don't do metal, and though yes, I did discover lots of great albums thanks to that, the new one seems more balanced.So yes, there is way more pop and they have pushed the dial on that a bit too far (2 Sade albums in the top 50 might be a bit of a stretch for instance), but we finally have 7 metal albums in the top 100, finally introducing Metallica 2 masterpieces in there... not exactly pushing a "poptimism" agenda in my book, and a needed correction. Arthur Russel or Laurie Anderson jumping in the top 50, and awesome experimental albums like The Expanding Universe or Deep Listening popping up further down the list also reflect more the adventurous side that Pitchfork always had, than any new trend.If anything, the big change is that black music and music by women is getting a boost, and I think that's something that should be appreciated (even if the original Straight Outta Compton's ranking was fine with me). Honestly the big drop of Murmur and the absence of Swordfishtrombones are the only 2 things I can't wrap my mind around (not that I agree with everything else, far from it, but nothing's shocking.

peteevans wrote:Anyone heard of The Nightfly ! Seems to be in many critics lists but can't find it's way into 200 albums by these lot !? Ridiculous.

If you look at the lists where it appears, they are mostly in what I would call the "conservative" side (not in a political kind of way to be clear), publications like Mojo, Uncut, Rolling Stone or Rock'n'Folk that have more of a focus on "classic rock" than other genres.